Okay, you all know I support open space. As I said before, since 1988 I haven't voted against funding it yet, whether in Boulder , Lafayette or at the County level. Five years working for BCPOS and my spot on LOSAC, those times pulling knapweed, Walker Ranch events, etc. - fun fun fun. So I'm not coming from a pro-development, anti-open space point of view on this one.
Longmont will have on the ballot this November a request to extend an open space tax until 2034. The current tax they wish to extend runs until 2020.
Now, the point of a sunset on a tax is to allow everyone to step back, take a breath, evaluate and debate the merits of the tax's implementation. Since the new tax wouldn't raise more money now (directly), this leap-frogging of the pertinent analysis is a bit over-reaching. Either ask for a new additional tax now and defend the merits, or just hold on a second and let the current tax play out for at least another decade. If this one passes it will demonstrate a generic support for all things open space I never perceived in Longmont before.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Open Space proponents are just acting while the "iron is hot". Open Space proponents know they can't get a "forever" tax passed in Longmont. But, as long as there is a general approval of OS, let's just extend the current tax, even though it doesn't expire for another 13 years. In effect, this is an extension for 27 years, pretty close to "forever".
Well, judging by the Council's obvious propensity for voting yes Yes YES *OH*GOD*YES!!* on Annexations, I have to think maybe it's a good idea to do everything possible to support open space. Either that or the LifeBridge church buys it and builds on it.
http://www.whatsinitforlongmont.org
http://stopunionannex.blogspot.com
Funny, I would be inclined to agree with the crowd that the timing of this still-sunsetted OS tax in Longmont is borderline bizarre, but it's been a while since I could get behind Doogman. Looking at Union simply as development versus open space, you do have a point. Not that I have any idea what's on Longmont's open space acquistion list, but, hey, why not?
People commonly take out 30-year mortgages when buying a home. That's basically what this open space tax extension is for the city — we buy the land now and pay it off over time. I think it's a worthy investment.
The "Open Space at any cost" concept is as dangerous as "development at any cost".
Until we find ways to control population growth, there will be development. Buying up large parcels of rural land does not stop population growth. Consequently, we're just pushing the development out farther, creating more widespread sprawl. Sure, it's not in our backyard, but it still happens.
I like the rural feel of Boulder County as much as the next guy, and thank OS for this. But, the rampant development to our east is partially the fault of OS in Boulder County.
Let's start exploring ways to limit population growth so we can control growth statewide.
And, those of you who have more than the replacement number of 2 kids don't carry a lot of weight in this discussion, because you're part of the problem.
D-B has a bigger point than one would think. Take a look at this:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/aug/27/the-mortgage-mess/
Builders went farther and farther east in BC to find developable land to build houses at lower prices than could be done in Boulder, Lafayette, Louisville, etc. Of course many of those new homeowners are caught in the subprime mess. I checked out Erie's permit numbers and it was unreal, now dropping like a rock. Longmont and Erie are pointed out in the article.
If anyone around here has a home in the $200,000 to $350,000 price range, good luck. Your equity is now lower than you think. And don't try to sell for the next five years or so.
So there are unintended consequences to any land use decision that is made. I wonder if we should have a "MOAT" tax so we could build one around every city these days.
What could be more elitist than disenfranchising public voices because of how many children they choose (or otherwise) to have?
The replacement birthrate, by the way, is above two per woman. Though, as a rule, I'm loathe to reference Wikipedia, the relevant article is concise and correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
I object to the use of open space to polarize political debate. In Boulder County, at least, the consensus around open space is far broader than the ideological fringe within Boulder city limits. Why assume, Doktorbombay, that this is the audience here?
Interestingly enough, population growth is one of the issues that a few vocal people in Boulder think CAN be controlled by limiting the available land for development. So it is interesting that you obseve that the "problem" just gets pushed farther out, when there is simultaneously a group that believes every bit of land taken out of development will somehow create just enough disincentive to deter a few more births. What exactly is this problem to begin with? Isn't is possible that demand to live in Boulder has more to do with abundant open space and quality of life than it is huddling masses starving at our doorstep?
To me, open space and population growth are apples and oranges. The same thing with problems in the credit market and open space. We can pretend that we in Boulder County could solve all the world's problems by holding open all our land for the poor and credit unworthy, or by doing the opposite, but these problems exist on a much larger scale than anything we have created through local open space acquisition.
Interesting this discussion occurs as the City of Boulder announces another purchase of OS in Jefferson County. Hard to deny there’s an “OS at any cost” mentality. Does it exist in EastBoCo? Attempts in Longmont to extend the tax out to 27 years would imply so.
Sorry, Kerry, I don’t agree with tying the subprime mess into the land use discussion. The subprime mess was caused by greedy developers and mortgage brokers, not land use decisions. Those houses would’ve still gone up with more conservative lending practices, albeit more slowly.
Alex, if my pointing out the irony of those who argue for controlled growth while producing more than 2 kids is elitist, and exclusionary, so be it. Since OS is a growth control tool, population growth has to be part of the discussion. Development doesn’t occur without population growth. People who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk have disenfranchised themselves, I didn’t do it. Controlled growth starts at home.
I’m fully aware the replacement birth rate is slightly over 2, just wasn’t sure how many digits right of the decimal I had to go on this blog. I guess I should have limited my comment to those who have more than 2 and a third children, but that just seemed silly. I’ve been a ZPG proponent for many years, pushing for sustainability long before it was in vogue.
I don’t want to discount the replacement rate, but it’s not the issue we deal with locally. It’s migration. (Don’t read this as immigration, I’m talking migration.) People moving here. And, not because of OS. They move here for the jobs.
In the 80s, when the local economy was on it’s butt, there were a few years when more people moved out of the state than into it. The state didn’t get uglier. Migration follows economic opportunity.
So, let’s play this out. All available land east of the mountains in Boulder County is converted to OS. No more development. No more new retailers. No room for new light industrial businesses. No new jobs. All the new retail occurs outside of the county, as well as new light industrial. New jobs occur outside the county. Is this OK with the hard core OS proponents?
Economies are either growing or declining. Economies cannot sit on a perfect pinnacle.
As I’ve said before, I like the rural feel of Boulder County as much as the next guy, and thank OS for that. But, I believe OS has long term consequences many don't want to admit to, or choose to ignore.
As for using OS to polarize political debate, I think it's even more dangerous to make it off limits for discussion.
D-B,
I think you misunderstood my point. Each city appears to have a different land use policy. Lafayette passed a growth cap and affordable housing policy. Erie had no cap and allowed development at the rate of 500 housing units per year. From what I know, little interest in OS purchase.
So the development went there because the land was cheap and not the target of Open Space purchases. (No tie to the subprime mess except easy credit to buy and buy.)
So now we have gridlock on Hwy 7, more emission polution, infrastructure deterioration, and a housing debacle on our boundaries.
As for Open Space not being a political issue, of course it is as the voters vote during an election for the tax. Do the voters ever hear about the downside of Open Space? Is it too upsetting to put that side on the table or should it be squelched?
Migration is the real issue facing Colorado. Fertility statistics could not underscore this more dramatically. I don't think it is much more than common sense that people who live here currently want to make sure they preserve their quality of life as more development occurs. This does not have to mean no new development, and Longmont's Union proposal is a particularly good example where one could ask what the costs and the benefits of development will be, and one might land almost anywhere on the spectrum depending on how you approach the question.
I've said myself before that there is a premium to be paid for housing in Boulder proper as a result of open space, but I have never seen anything that quantified very well, and I find the applicability of those assumptions about the "downside" of open space to be of more questionable application in the East County.
If lending practices allowed promoters in the real estate industry to prop up a failing market, and we haven't had anywhere close to 200 residential permits pulled in Lafayette, how does open space or even the overt growth management regulation of the City have anything to do with supply or demand for housing? There are just too many factors involved to convince me that the downside of open space is something we really truly feel in the East County.
None of this is to say that the issue is not worth bringing up, but I find that any context where it is "too upsetting" is probably one where the extrapolation has gotten way out of hand. Believe it or not, people of all income levels still live everywhere in Boulder County, and, believe it or not, the struggles we deal with in terms of cost of living, taxes, and so forth are struggles that have as much to do with influences in the national real estate market as any local premium in values.
It's interesting to hear the admission about being part of the ZPG movement, Doktorbombay. If economies are always growing or contracting, couldn't one say the same thing about populations? I always thought the push for sustainability was, in theory, premised on getting beyond that mode of thinking.
Alex says, “It's interesting to hear the admission about being part of the ZPG movement”. Admission? Movement? This proves my point about how unpopular the population issue is in the whole sustainability discussion. Someone still needs to explain to me how we can have sustainability with ever increasing populations.
You’re correct, Alex, economic models will have to change to adjust to flat or declining populations. For brevity, I didn’t get into that in my last post.
According to the US Census Bureau, the population in Boulder County declined between 2000 and 2006. So, Boulder County is a great location to study the impact of flat or declining populations on economic models.
Luckily, surrounding counties are experiencing tremendous growth. Those new residents don’t yet have many shopping options in their neighborhoods and are temporarily propping up retail sales in Boulder County, particularly in EastBoCo. But, as those outlying areas continue to grow, retailers will follow. As their options expand in their own backyard, retail sales in Boulder County will decline.
No wonder revenue sharing is being discussed. The older, more established towns are trying to ride the retail sales tax gains in EastBoCo as long as they can. They don't want to ask for property tax increases.
Again, according to the Census, the median income in BC is 14% higher than the state median income. Yet, only 64% of residents own their own home in BC, as opposed to 67% statewide. The median value of an owner-occupied home in BC is 45% higher than the state median value.
Rising property values, ever increasing taxes, declining population. Boulder County is becoming increasingly exclusionary. Yes, there is currently a mix of various income and ethnic groups, but this is changing. Lower income groups are moving out, they can’t afford to stay.
We can fool ourselves into believing OS has limited impact if OS is one of our favored policies. But, the facts don't always align.
I feel compelled to repeat this. I enjoy the rural feel of Boulder County and credit OS for this. Consequently, I've voted for OS taxes in the past. I'm just concerned there is a head long rush toward converting vacant land to OS with little regard for long range impacts. And, unfortunately, as with most things today - you're either with us or against us. No common ground, no common sense.
I always find it frustrating as to how connecting the dots is viewed by some.
Let's just take a look at the money being spent on OS. In Lafayette it is 1/7th of the retail sales tax. Equal to a big box store in sales tax.
Suppose this hypthetical question was put to the voters: choose rescinding that tax or close the library. It would be interesting to see the debate.
This year a ballot issue to allow the borrowing of $5M plus interest against future sales tax to repave our roads. Suppose there was no OS tax. The roads could have been maintained over the years.
Or repay a bunch of debt the city has. Always borrowing against the future.
Or when Safeway, Wal-Mart, and the Larkridge Mall develop east of town with all that development and negatively impact Lafayette's sale tax (add that to residential development fees at a low for the next decade). What can't be paid for in the city?
Or the gridlock on Hwy 7 every morning.
So these types of opportunity costs exist. Just that it is heresy around here even to think in those terms. Good blogging though.
As for the effect of Boulder County's OS strategy. Just look at the TDR policy as an example.
And if one believes growth management, OS strategy, and the affordable housing policy did not drive development to Erie, ask any builder.
Of course all of this is mute, as the council's vis-it-a-bility vote will kill any development in the city anyway.
In private enterprise, opportunity cost analysis is huge. Lafayette's population has slowed to a crawl.
My prognosis: property taxes will need to be increased.
Now there is a great debate, lower OS taxe or increase prop tax.
I have no idea where this is going... The OS tax was voter approved to purchase and maintain OS, period. If it is removed, this does not put more money into Roads/libraries/etc. Quite frankly, if you think OS is causing high home values, and lack of other ammenities, you aren't reading the facts right.
One thing that has been absent from this discussion is the fact that things cost what people are willing to pay for them. There is a lot of money in Boulder and a lot of people willing to pay more than they need to for things. This has a larger effect on housing price than anything. I see houses get bought and raised to put up huge houses often around Boulder. In my opinion this was a waste of a perfectly nice house, and a lot of cash to tear something down and put up new. Location, location, location.
I couldn't sell my house for what it was worth last year, because the market in a 5 mile radius is flooded with housing. There are still areas of Lafayette that can be developed for retail/commercial/industrial/housing. I don't get the connection between OS and these woes at this time.
Cyclo, you're exactly right when you say things cost what people will pay for them. That's why people are doing scrape offs and building huge homes. They can afford it.
But, to say OS has not increased property values doesn't give OS credit for accomplishing anything but taking vacant land off the market, with no impact. Hard to believe.
The higher income levels in Boulder drive this. You don't hear anybody in low income regions clamoring to tax themselves to purchase vacant land.
The real estate downturn is not proof that OS has no impact. The downturn is caused by factors much larger than OS, and much more widespread than just Boulder County.
Cyclo,
My basic assumption was that the current OS tax rate would remain but allowed to be spent on something else, not that the tax would be eliminated. So, yes, it would be spent on other stuff. A city manager's dream.
And if one has the bucks, one can build what one can afford. Besides prop taxes are quite low here in relationship to the East Coast.
But two of the reasons the building craze occured east of Lafayette is the growth cap voted in after the builders went crazy here and the cheap land (Vista Ridge and AnthemCO).
As for more development in Lafayette, a lot has been approved. The question now is will it be built (if ever) and how fast.
One of the OS strategies is to snap up available land to ensure it won't be built on. Increases demand and decreases supply.
I couldn't afford to buy the lot I have today.
What is the human carrying capacity of the planet we live on, Doktorbombay? If you know the answer to that question, then you are entitled to judge whether we have breached that limit.
The question of sustainability is usually tied to a stable population at some level, but who decides where to set that level? The Population Bomb has not gone off yet (I remember when 6 billion sounded pretty scary). How do we know if and when growth will ever cause catastrophic problems, collapsing resources, widespread famine, every man for himself, self-destruction of the human race...
What's actually happening?
Replacement numbers are barely achieved in the United States and other industrialized nations.
I'm not sure I understand how we need to hold open more land for more development. Why would that be? Aren't we done with growth according to ZPG creed?
Nevertheless, if you are in a member of an unusual font of ZPG that believes the population can and will, and should well increase, then I can understand the sense of moral responsibility to allow for perhaps indefinite growth.
But, you know, even if I were to go along with that, I'd still go for the compact urban model, not tract upon tract devoid of any open land.
Cyclorado has made a key point. If it were true that open space has increased demand for real estate in Boulder County, which it may, at the same time it has decreased supply (conversions to open space from a planned housing reserve of enormous proportions?)... well, then we should see some upward price pressure.
The Lafayette market is flat, and some would say losing ground. Again, the price effect may be significant in the City of Boulder. But the East County does not, as far as I can comprehend, show any significant price pressure or increased demand, in spite of some relatively sizable open space parcels surrounding the East County cities. Maybe a substantial premium in Louisville, a smaller premium in Lafayette, and maybe a small Boulder County premium. In this analysis, I think there is a limited opportunity to increase value through open space around a city. It does not go up linearly, and open space will not add any more value in the form of a price premium once a city the size of Lafayette reaches a certain level. (For one, we do not have infinite potential value for our houses.)
What happens in a market that is going through flat demand and increasing inventories of unsold properties? Isn't this what Lafayette looks like, a relatively bad time to be a seller? Is this the nightmare caused by open space?
And who says that I don't want to join in with a few thousand of my neighbors and pay fair market prices to preserve land around the towns? I just don't find this questionable at all. Open space is not a moral dilemma, and it's nothing but honest desire to preserve open land for myself, my children, and for the sake of our culture.
We can say, yes, there are some costs associated with any public decision. There are always costs on one side of the equation, always benefits on the other. But are they unfair or unwarranted?
I get the argument against open space in the abstract, but I don't see how the argument holds together when it predicts economic outcomes that do not seem certain at all.
Thank you for the reality check, Cyclorado.
OK, I think we're getting somewhere now. I agree that taking alnd off the market would force prices/home values up. I think this would only happen when available land for purchase and development is in short supply. That is several years out, for the Lafayette area. I'd rather see a limit to where our community will develop out to, than a free-for-all develop anywhere. I think our Comp plan lays out a good strategy to accomplish this.
I'm not sure what I think about Kerry's plan to gut the OS tax... good luck getting re-elected with that platform. I'd be willing to help fund better roads, libraries, rec center, etc. Why not just ask the voters.
Nice rant, Alex, guess I hit a nerve. My alignment with the ZPG concept does not put me in the camp of raving idiots. Please don't paint me in that light.
But, I still contend the concept of a large family is at odds with the concept of preserving our resources.
Your comments about the impact of OS on property values in EastBoCo have merit. Property values closer to the Weld County line, although pushed higher by the perceived value of living in Boulder County, are pushed down by much lower values just across the county line.
So, EastBoCo residents pay the ultimate price. They get to pay OS tax, and don't see a return on their investment in the form of increased property values.
And, yes, you can band together with thousands of like-minded individuals and do whatever you wish. Luckily most Boulder County residents have the funds to do that. Poorer regions never talk about stuff like this, they can't afford to.
Because you choose to, and can afford to, means it's not a moral dilemma to you. It's also not a moral dilemma to drive an SUV if you can afford to, regardless of the MPG. Or, live in a 10,000 sf home, if you can afford to.
I'll continue to repeat this, because I'm not sure everyone's understanding my position. I'm not opposed to the concept of OS, enjoy it's benefits, voted to pay the tax on more than one occasion. My fear is of the "OS at any cost" mentality, and that any "OS deal is a good deal".
Well, for the record, I don't believe in open space at any cost. I just don't think we're anywhere near paying an "ultimate price" in East BoCo. I don't need to see a premium on the price tag of my home for open space to have public benefits that accrue to me.
It is interesting, after all this discussion in the name of public disclosure, that Kerry (who doesn't think anyone pays attention to this blog) didn't say a word about these "costs" when council pulled the Echternacht purchase from the consent agenda last night.
Finally, for the record, I have no problem with ZPG. It makes some assumptions about where we are relative to the carrying capacity of the planet, but I regard a little caution as rational when no other rational policy is guiding population growth or, looking at it globally, urban expansion.
Post a Comment